Skip to main content
Glama
AIops-tools

cicd-aiops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_artifacts

Destructive

Remove a project's build artifacts—all or those older than N days—to reclaim storage. Preview the byte count with dry_run first; deletions cannot be undone.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=high] Delete a project's artifacts (all, or older than N days).

IRREVERSIBLE — reads the artifact inventory first so priorState records the file count and bytes being destroyed; no undo. Pass dry_run=True to preview (reports what would be reclaimed without deleting).

Args: project: Project id or full path. older_than_days: Only delete artifacts created before this many days ago; 0 = the server's bulk delete of all eligible artifacts. dry_run: If True, preview without deleting. acknowledge_unknown_inventory: Allow the bulk delete when the artifact inventory cannot be read (it is refused otherwise, because nothing would record what was destroyed). Never applies to older_than_days. target: Server target name from config; omit for the default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNo
dry_runNo
projectYes
older_than_daysNo
acknowledge_unknown_inventoryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.13.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / acknowledge_unknown_inventory
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Acknowledge Unknown Inventory",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations: declares IRREVERSIBLE with no undo, explains it reads the artifact inventory first so priorState records file count and bytes destroyed, and explains that the bulk delete is refused when inventory is unreadable unless explicitly acknowledged. This is exactly the contextual detail destructiveHint alone cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Risk markers and the irreversibility warning are front-loaded, and the Args block is easy to scan. It is somewhat long, but nearly every sentence adds a distinct constraint or safety behavior rather than restating the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a high-risk destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, previewability, the inventory/priorState behavior, and all five parameters including the acknowledgment escape hatch. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: project is id-or-path, older_than_days=0 means the server's bulk delete of all eligible artifacts, dry_run previews, acknowledge_unknown_inventory has a clear condition and exclusion, target is a config name with a default. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (a project's artifacts) with explicit scope qualifiers (all, or older than N days). The [WRITE][risk=high] tag and the sibling list_artifacts/artifact_storage_bloat_analysis make the destructive-vs-read distinction clear without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States when to use each mode: pass dry_run=True to preview, use older_than_days to limit deletion by age. It also states when acknowledge_unknown_inventory applies and when it never applies. It doesn't explicitly route the agent to a read alternative like list_artifacts, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools